Agroecology versusEcoagriculture - IUCN › backup_iucn › cmsdata.iucn.org › ...Agroecology versusEcoagriculture, M. Altieri 3 4 CEESP Occasional PPapers 3, November 2004 of the

Agroecology versus Ecoagriculture: balancing ffood pproduction aand biodiversity cconservation iin tthe

midst oof ssocial iinequity

Miguel AA. AAltieri

FFor too long agriculture has been seen

as a threat– in fact one of the mainthreats–to biodiversity conservation.However, with the increased apprecia-tion for the livelihoods role of agriculturefor local communities, as well asrenewed interest in non-chemical agri-culture, the conservation movement isstarting to take a second look.

Agriculture is recognized as an extensiveand necessary form of land use; conser-vation aims cannot be achieved at theexpense of rural livelihoods. In 2002IUCN launched the EcoagriculturePartners, an initiative which has theinvolvement of powerful agriculturalinput companies with a history of con-troversy and conflict with farmers, suchas Syngenta.Conservation and development groups,

IUCN included, recognisethat business can be a powerfor good as well as for ill. Ofcourse it is necessary forIUCN to engage in debatewith the private sector– howelse can we seek to influencethem? But the terms of ourdialogue and debates are ofparamount importance. Themere engagement in dia-logue with IUCN or otherenvironmental groups can beused as a “greenwash” ofcorporate sector intereststhat have little to do withconserving biodiversity orending poverty, rhetoricaside. There are two greatattractions for IUCN in deal-ing with private corporations:The prospect of positivelyinfluencing the private sector.This is part of the mission ofIUCN and any real chance toachieve this goal would be

Ecoagriculture: AA TTrojan hhorse ffor aagricultural mmulti-national ccorporations tto eenter IIUCN?

M. TTaghi FFarvar, CChairIUCN CCommission oon EEnvironmental, EEconomicand SSocial PPolicy ((CEESP)

Who aare tthe EEcoagriculture PPartners?Ecoagriculture is defined as sustainable agriculture and asso-ciated natural resource management that embrace andsimultaneously enhance productivity, rural livelihoods,ecosystem services and (especially wild) biodiversity.

The “Ecoagriculture Partners” was formally established atthe World Summit for Sustainable Development under theco-sponsorship of IUCN and the Future Harvest Foundationas a WSSD “Type II partnership”. One of the main outcomesof the Johannesburg Summit was the Type II partnerships,which can include the private sector and are meant to sup-plement— or supplant (depending on one’s perspective)—the commitments by governments to achieve sustainabledevelopment.

IUCN’s co-sponsor, The Future Harvest Foundation, was initi-ated by the Public Awareness and Resource MobilisationCommittee of CGIAR, the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research, and is now registered asan NGO. Partners from the private sector include CropLifeInternational, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative, BayerCropScience AG as well as Syngenta Foundation forSustainable Agriculture (an organisation established andfunded by Syngenta).

2

extremely welcome; The prospect of receiving funds fromthe private sector to support IUCN activ-ities. This could be a lure, as the integri-ty of IUCN may be compromised by it.Money is never given without conditionsor expectations, and even though theseconditions may never be clearly men-tioned, history shows that they eventu-ally manifest themselves.

Importantly, the IUCN members havethe right to expect that any such diffi-cult and delicate dialogue is pursuedunder clear rules, guidelines and princi-ples (such as the principle of the mean-ingful participation of rightsholders).IUCN needs to learn the lessons from itsengagement with the mining sector, anengagement which was initially launchedas a “partnership” but was then down-graded to a “dialogue” when IUCNmembers, Councillors, indigenous peo-ples and others raised strong objectionsto such a partnership. The industryagreed to the dialogue, but insisted thatissues of human rights and equity wouldhave to be excluded from the topics ofdiscussion. This condition was unaccept-able to the IUCN Council. This experi-ence holds lessons for IUCN’s growingengagement with agribusiness.Agribusinesses are also accused bymany of human rights abuses, such asthe many deaths throughout the worldcaused by pesticide poisonings and thetheft of genetic material from local com-munities, also known as bio-piracy.Agriculture is no less of a battlegroundfor the rights of indigenous peoples andlocal communities– as well as con-sumers– than mining.

IUCN is a nature conservation organisa-

tion with an equal concern for equityand social justice. Our own missiondemands us to be extremely cautiouswhen dealing with groups with a knownhistory of exploiting and damagingnature and being careless about theconcerns of local communities andindigenous peoples. Especially whenthe profits these companies stand togain are so great that incentives for realchange are greatly weakened, we needto consider options with wide open eyesand a background of principles and cri-teria as a guide. For instance, the fol-lowing principles for engaging with theprivate sector would help to ensure thatIUCN’s integrity, values and reputationremain intact:

1.As a rule, IUCN should not accept anymoney from private sector companieswhose actions and normal businesscontradict IUCN’s vision and princi-ples. Dialogue or even collaboration,but without taking money, will makeIUCN a partner with integrity. Oncewe accept money from private corpo-rations, there is a real risk of compro-mising our principles.

2.IUCN can be called an ethics-drivenorganization, but private sector com-panies clearly are not. Exactlybecause of that we should exercisedouble care to enter only into situa-tions in which we set the rules, ratherthan the contrary. For instance, IUCNand other powerful bodies should notdiscuss issues or enter into agree-ments that affect third parties withoutthose third parties being allowed toparticipate in the discussion. Thisbecomes of utmost importance whenthese parties are among the weak-est— such as indigenous peoples andlocal communities in many countries

3Agroecology versus Ecoagriculture, M. Altieri

4 CEESP Occasional PPapers 3, November 2004

of the South.

As mentioned above,lack of clear guidelinesand principles can leadto co-option. With theinvolvement of compa-nies such as Syngenta, akey area of concern isthe role of biotechnologyin ecoagriculture.Ecoagriculture Partnershas, to date, not identi-fied any ecoagriculturesystems using GMOs,but this does not neces-sarily mean that pro-biotech interests are notinfluencing their agenda.In a Strategic PlanningWorkshop of theEcoagriculture Partners held at IUCNHeadquarters in 2003, partners conclud-ed that they should support the “pre-cautionary approach” in introducing newagricultural technologies. They alsoagreed that “where existing technologiesand management systems have provennegative impacts on biodiversity,Ecoagriculture Partners will seek totransform them”. Both of these argu-ments are trademarks of the pro-biotechindustry lobby. On the other hand, envi-ronmental organizations argue thatgiven the unpredictable consequences ofgenetic technology and the fact that anyadverse consequences will only be evi-dent in the long run the “precautionaryprinciple” (not “approach”) should beapplied. IUCN has adopted a similar pol-icy through Resolution 2.31 of the WorldConservation Congress, which urges

IUCN members to “apply the precau-tionary principle in their respectiveregions regarding further releases ofgenetically modified organisms into theenvironment” including in the rationalethat there is “widespread concern thatgenetically modified organisms (GMOs)could have potentially dangerous effectson living organisms and their ecosys-tems”1. By agreeing to conclusions thatare weaker than existing IUCN policy,the Ecoagriculture Partners seem toreveal the influence of pro-biotech inter-ests on their agenda.

There is growing concern, particularlyamong NGOs and social movements,with the influence of agribusinesses onthe agendas of public and inter-govern-mental organizations. The corporatetakeover of public agricultural research

Precautionary pprinciple oor pprecautionary aapproach?The terms “precautionary principle” and “precautionaryapproach” are often used interchangeably, but there are impor-tant differences between the two.

According to the IUCN issues paper, The Precautionary Principlein Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource Management:“‘The precautionary principle’ appears to mandate that risk beavoided or minimized, thereby automatically giving the environ-ment the benefit of the doubt; while ‘the precautionary approach’implies that it allows flexible operational measures which arecontext-sensitive and allow for the balancing of various objec-tives, including economic ones.”

One of the most important ways in which the precautionary prin-ciple is given operational effect is the burden of proof.Proponents of potentially harmful activities may be required todemonstrate that such activities are safe or acceptable, ratherthan those opposing the activities being required to argue thatthey are harmful.”

1 The Resolution was adopted, but with a formal objection from the delegation of Canada to an amendment changing the words “precautionaryapproach” to “precautionary principle”.

and policy-making over the past severalyears is striking. Currently CGIAR, oneof the Ecoagriculture Partners (boththrough its Future Harvest Foundationas well as four of its 16 Future HarvestCentres), is at the centre of many of thecontroversies.

CGIAR is the largest publicly fundedinternational institution working on agri-cultural research. Even more important-ly, the CGIAR holds in public trust theworld’s largest collection of plant geneticresources. The CGIAR established itsNGO Committee (NGOC) in 1995 tostrengthen its partnerships with NGOs.Yet at the CGIAR Annual GeneralMeeting in 2002, the NGO Committee“froze” its relations with the CGIAR. TheNGOC sited the adoption by CGIAR of acorporate agenda for agriculturalresearch and development as the mainreason behind this move.

But the reach of the biotech corpora-tions seems to have spread even furtherto the FAO itself, an inter-governmentalorganization mandated with addressingfood security. In 2004 FAO published areport (Biotechnology: Meeting theneeds of the poor?) which many civilsociety organizations, including CEESP,denounced for its biased pro-biotechnol-ogy stand. Over 650 civil society organi-zations signed a protest letter againstthe report, an unprecedented globalmobilization against a report by a UNagency. They asserted that the report“has been used in a politically-motivatedpublic relations exercise to support thebiotechnology industry. The way inwhich the report has been prepared andreleased to the media, sadly, raises seri-ous questions about the independence

and intellectual integrity of an importantUnited Nations agency.”

The lesson for IUCN is clear: not onlymust we be cautious in dealing with theprivate sector, but on issues where theprivate sector has gained influence inpublic institutions– such as agriculture–IUCN must be even more cautious,applying the same principles to its deal-ings with these public institutions as itwould to the private sector.

Finally, it may be necessary to reiteratethat we support the engagement ofIUCN with the private sector, as long asconcerns such as those addressed inthis article are dealt with. If they arenot addressed, there would be nochoice but to avoid a direct or formalengagement with the private sector andresort to challenging them throughother means. Organizations, move-ments, activists and scientists whorefuse a direct engagement with the pri-vate sector are sometimes characterisedas merely screaming from the sidelines;too afraid, too apathetic, too irresponsi-ble or simply too ill-informed to engagein a direct dialogue with their adver-saries. Yet, more often than not, thischaracterisation is a tactic used to dis-credit the legitimate voices of dissent inthe face of powerful interests. Theexperience of the NGO Committee ofthe CGIAR is a case in point. The mem-bers of the Committee had made thedecision to engage CGIAR directly indebate by sitting on the Committeesince 1995. As the CGIAR began todeviate from its mandate their concernsgrew and finally began to gradually boilover. Even prior to the freeze in rela-tions announced at the 2002 AGM, a


number of the NGOC members hadresigned. In May 2003, the last memberannounced his resignation. In 2004 asthe situation has continued to deterio-rate, NGOs and Civil SocietyOrganisations—including some formermembers of the NGOC—have startedcalling for the CGIAR to be shut downcompletely.

While it has been necessary to examinein detail the relationship of IUCN withagribusiness in the context of theEcoagriculture Partners, it is also neces-sary to take a closer look at the sub-stance of the ecoagriculture approach.For this, Miguel Altieri’s contribution isessential reading for any of us whothought that ecoagriculture and agroe-cology were synonymous. We are happyto produce it in CEESP’s OccasionalPaper series as this will surely contributeto the intensification of dialogue anddebate.

Altieri articulates important differencesbetween ecoagriculture and agroecolo-gy, both in terms of conservation andpoverty. He makes a strong case thatagroecology works to conserve biodiver-sity and improve livelihoods by buildingon traditional agriculture and indigenousknowledge and by addressing the rootcauses of poverty and inequality, suchas lack of access to productiveresources, including land and water.The latter, an approach known as “foodsovereignty” contrasts “food security”—an approach that often perpetuatesdependence of the hungry and the pooron the goodwill of the “haves”.Ecoagriculture, on the other hand,

seems to ignore the importance of cus-tomary institutions. For example, inreading Ecoagriculture by McNeely andScherr,2— a valuable work that treatsmany technical problems and solutions—one cannot help but notice that a greatdeal of the solutions discussed by theauthors have been in practice by cus-tomary institutions of indigenous peo-ples and traditional communities for mil-lennia. This begs the question, “Whyare these being dismantled today andwhy are we not trying to re-institute thegood practices by strengthening, ratherthan ignoring and weakening, the cus-tomary institutions that have possessedthe knowledge of sustainable agricultureand pastoralism with the conservation ofbiodiversity? To do so would be no lesspractical than some of the— seeminglyunlikely— measures proposed in thebook.

Perhaps there is only a communicationproblem between some in the conserva-tion community and the majority ofthose committed to equity and socialjustice. But IUCN, which combines bothof these two fundamental concerns,needs to make concrete efforts at bridg-ing this gap— which amounts to nothingless that remaining true to its own mis-sion.


2 McNeely, J.A. and S.J. Scherr. Ecoagriculture: strategies to feed the world and save wild biodiversity. Future Harvest and IUCN. Washington,Island Press, 2003.


Table oof ccontents

Preface by M. Taghi Farvar 2

Agroecology versus Ecoagriculture: balancing food production and biodiversity conservation in the midst of social inequity 8

Large scale plantations and transgenic crops: can they advance the goals of ecoagriculture? 10

The agroecology and ecoagriculture divide 14

The agroecological approach to conservation 16

A case study: harmonizing biodiversity conservation and cacao production 20

Spreading the agroecological approach 23

Conclusion 26

References 28


AAt first glance, everybody would

agree that the concept ofEcoagriculture (ECOAG) is a goodone. Who could oppose the idea oftransforming agricultural systems so thatthey support healthy populations of wildspecies while simultaneously improvingproductivity and reducing poverty?There is an urgent need to conservebiodiversity and if this can be achievedthrough agricultural intensification,which many argue is needed to meetgrowing food demands in the developingworld, there is no question that this is awin-win situation. Ecoagriculture advo-cates argue that their approach is par-ticularly important in the biodiversityhotspots of the developing world wheremost of the poor concentrate and havelittle choice but to exploit wild habitatsfor survival.

Ecoagriculture promoters claim that thebest way to reduce the impact of agri-cultural modernization on ecosystemintegrity is to intensify production inorder to increase yields per hectare, andin this way spare natural forests andother wildlife habitats from further agri-cultural expansion. They argue thatfeeding a growing world populationwithout further endangering the naturalenvironment and its biodiversity requires

an evaluation of the role that emergingtechnologies may play in helping meetfood needs at a reasonable environmen-tal and social cost. Although theyembrace alternative, low input agricul-tural systems, ECOAG practitioners donot discount chemically-based, high-yielding, intensive agricultural systems,including transgenic crops, as part oftheir strategy for protecting wildlifewhile feeding theworld’s popula-tion. While theydo not directlyrecommend agro-chemically basedsystems, they doso indirectly bypromoting inten-sification of cropproduction as theonly way to spareforests from theadvancing agri-cultural frontierBy doing so,ECOAG support-ers adhere to twopervasiveassumptions: (a) that alternatives to achemically-based crop production sys-tem necessarily require more land toproduce the same amount of output and(b) that the adverse ecological andhealth consequences of industrial farm-

Agroecology versus Ecoagriculture: balancing ffood pproduction aand bbiodiversity cconserva-tion iin tthe mmidst oof ssocial iinequity

Miguel AA. AAltieriUniversity of California, Berkeley

Although tthey eembracealternative, llow iinput aagri-

cultural ssystems,Ecoagriculture ppractitionersdo nnot ddiscount cchemically-based, hhigh-yyielding, iinten-sive aagricultural ssystems,

including ttransgenic ccrops,as ppart oof ttheir sstrategy ffor

protecting wwildlife wwhilefeeding tthe wworld’s ppopula-

tion. WWhile tthey ddo nnotdirectly rrecommend aagro-chemically bbased ssystems,

they ddo sso iindirectly bby ppro-moting iintensification oofagricultural pproduction.


ing are minor in comparison tothose that would be wrought byexpansion of land extensive pro-duction systems.

But the ecological and healthimpacts of industrial farming arenot easily discounted. In his globalanalysis of the impacts of agricul-tural intensification on biodiversity,Donald (2004) found that massiveincreases in production of fivemajor commodities (soybean, rice,cacao, coffee and oil palm) wereachieved by increases in both thearea planted and in the yieldachieved per unit area. Both strate-gies led to environmental degrada-tion and negative impacts on biodiversi-ty via massive loss of natural habitatsbut more importantly through pollutionlinked to heavy use of agrochemicals.Monoculture systems, lacking in func-tional biodiversity and self regulatorymechanisms, are genetically homoge-nous and species poor systems that arevery vulnerable to diseases and pestoutbreaks. Due to this increased vulner-ability, more than 500 million kg ofactive ingredient of pesticides areapplied annually on the world’s geneti-cally homogeneous agroecosystems(91% of the 1.5 billion hectares ofarable lands are under monocultures ofgrain) to suppress insect pests, diseasesand weeds. The environmental impactson wildlife (pollinators, natural enemies,fisheries, etc) and social costs (humanpoisonings and illnesses) of pesticideuse reach about $8 billion each year inthe USA alone. Such costs are muchhigher in the developing world wherebanned pesticides imported from theNorth are still being used at large.

Despite such costs the chemical warfareagainst pests is futile as more than 450species of arthropods are resistant tovarious insecticides and today yield loss-es to pests reach 30%, the same as 50years ago.

And while it is well known that wide-spread adoption of chemically-based,land intensive crop production systemshave negative impacts on biodiversity,less known is the fact that such produc-tion models actually hinder attempts toprovide adequate food for a growingworld population. Increasing productiondoes not necessarily reduce hunger. Thereal causes of hunger are poverty,inequality and lack of access to foodand land. In many parts of the worldfamines occur during periods of highagricultural output, not food shortages.When the true root cause of hunger isinequality, then as most methods of pro-duction intensification deepen inequali-ties, they fail to reduce hunger.

Figure 1. Seeds are carefully gathered and grown inSalvador de Bahia, Brazil for home consumption(Courtesy Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend)

Large scale plantations andtransgenic crops: can theyadvance the goals of ecoagricul-ture?Large scale plantations and transgeniccrops are among the tools of theEcoagriculture arsenal to reach the twingoals of meeting future global foodneeds and conserving biodiversity. InEcoagriculture: strategies to feed theworld and save wild biodiversity,McNeely and Scherr (2003) providemany examples of interventions that,according to them, can simultaneouslyreach the objectives of conservation andfood production. Among the exam-ples, they cite a large (3,300 has)corporate Costa Rican orange plan-tation that belongs to Del OroCompany. Large patches of drytropical forest are left within oradjacent to the farm, benefitingbiodiversity while bringing substan-tial economic gains to Del Oro (thecrops are grown with cheap laborand marketed with a focus on theproduct that benefits biodiversity, amessage that is seductive forNorthern consumers). Given thatone of the main problems for poorfarmers in most of the developingworld is access to productive land,it may be argued that it is preciselythose very large biodiversity-friend-

ly plantationssuch as Del Oro thatneed to undergo aprocess of landreform to reducesocial inequities, animportant compo-nent of any mean-

ingful conservation effort. It is difficultto understand how a conservation strat-

egy for large mammals and birds thatrequire extended territories for effectivereproduction can be compatible with anagricultural development agendafocused on small farmers that barelyhave small plots of land to grow theircrops?

In fact, breaking up large plantationsinto a patchwork of thousands of smallfarms which make up highly heteroge-neous landscapes is key to promotingrich biodiversity. In Mexico, half of thehumid tropics are utilized by indigenouscommunities and “ejidos” (a form ofcommunal land tenure still present in

Mexico) featuring integrated agriculture-forestry systems aimed at subsistenceand local-regional markets. Recentresearch confirms that such systems likecacao and coffee-based agroforestrymanaged with low inputs by smallhold-ers harbor significant biodiversity,including a substantial number of plant,insect, bird, bat and various mammal


Breaking uup llarge pplan-tations iinto aa ppatchwork

of tthousands oof ssmallfarms wwhich mmake uuphighly hheterogeneous

landscapes iis kkey tto ppro-moting rrich bbiodiversity.

Figure 2. A rustic shade coffee system that harborsbiodiversity but also provides ecological services to thecoffee system for optimal crop protection, nutrientcycling and productivity (Courtesy Miguel Altieri)

species. Biodiversity is highest in themore rustic tree diverse and multistratasystems interspersed in a matrix of trop-ical forests (Perfecto et al. 1996).

Arguments in favor of consolidating landholdings to take advantage of greaterproductivity and efficiency, as well asbiodiversity conservation potential, haveno scientific basis. The actual datashows the opposite: small farms pro-duce far more per acre or hectare thanlarge farms. These arguments persist,however, based on the false concept ofefficiency (measuring yields per acre asthe key indicator of performance) andbased on the fact that large farms pro-duce high amounts of one product butin fact the total output of small farms ismuch higher because they produce agreat diversity of crops using resourcesmore efficiently. The relationshipbetween farm size and total productionfor fifteen countries in the developingworld shows in all cases that relativelysmaller farm sizes are much more pro-ductive per unit area – 200 to 1,000percent more productive – than largerones. In the United States the smallestfarms, those of 27 acres or less, havemore than ten times greater dollar out-put per acre than larger farms. While inthe U.S. this is largely because smallerfarms tend to specialize in high valuecrops like vegetables and flowers, it alsoreflects relatively more attention devot-ed to the farm, and more diverse farm-ing systems (Rosset 2002). Recent evi-dence from agroecological surveys ofsmall scale coffee producers in Chiapas,Mexico, reveals an important relation-ship between farm size, technology usedand production. Conventional coffeeproducers had larger landholdings aver-

aging 7 hectares, devoting most of theirland to coffee production. Since theirsystems used shade trees, they con-served some biodiversity but theirdependence on external markets forcash, food and inputs was very high,making such farmers very vulnerable tothe vagaries of an economic system outof their control. Large farms used fertil-izers and pesticides and had a higherlevel of dependence on external inputs.Conversely the average farm size forsmall organic producers was 4 hectares.These farms exhibited the highest aver-age coffee yields and did not make useof fertilizers and pesticides. In addition,they devoted about 30-50% of theirland to maize and beans for food securi-ty, pasture for animals and forestreserve. Given the heterogeneouspatchy nature of such farming systems,their contributionto biodiversity wassignificant butimportant to noteis that this wasachieved withoutsacrificing farmers’autonomy andfood security(Martinez-Torres2003).

Reflecting theviews of the FutureHarvestFoundation,Syngenta, otherdonors and theCGIAR,Ecoagricultureadvocates arguethat biotechnology is biodiversity friend-ly because planting engineered high-


Reflecting tthe vviews oof ttheFuture HHarvest

Foundation, SSyngenta,other ddonors aand tthe

CGIAR, EEcoagricultureadvocates aargue tthat

biotechnology iis bbiodiversi-ty ffriendly bbecause pplant-ing eengineered hhigh-yyieldcrops wwill aavoid aadvancingthe aagricultural ffrontier.This vview iis fflawed aas iitignores oother mmore ppower-ful fforces tthat ddrive ddefor-estation aand aalso aassumesthat GGMOs iincrease yyieldswhen ddata sshows tthat fforexample RRR rready ssoy-

bean yyields 66% lless tthanconventional vvarieties.

yield crops will avoid advancing the agri-cultural frontier (McNeely and Scherr,2003). This view is a legacy of theGreen Revolution, which assumed thatprogress in traditional agriculture sys-tems inevitably required the replace-ment of local crop varieties withimproved ones. This led to the disrup-tion of traditional biodiverse agriculturalpatterns and the erosion of landracesand wild relatives along with indigenousknowledge. Large scale adoption oftransgenic varieties will lead to the ero-sion of traditional varieties in the sameway as the adoption of modern varietiesof the Green Revolution. The rapidspread of transgenic crops threatenscrop diversity by promoting large mono-cultures on a rapidly expanding scaleleading to further environmental simplifi-

cation and genetic homogeneity.Worldwide, the areas planted with trans-genic cropsjumped more thanthirty-fold in thepast seven years,from 3 millionhectares in 1996to nearly 58.7 mil-lion hectares in2002 (James2002), anunprecedented move towards increasedagricultural uniformity (Jordan, 2001).These crops are being grown on landthat was being cultivated with othercrop species and varieties. In Argentinathe rise of Round up ready soybean (acrop for animal feed) occurred at theexpense of more than 300 thousand

hectares of food crops and it waspartly responsible for the hungerthat prevailed in that countryafter the recent economic crisis.Such simplification and the asso-ciated environmental impacts oftransgenic crops can lead toreductions in agroecosystem bio-diversity (Altieri 2004).

Biodiversity brings direct benefitsfor agriculture through a range ofenvironmental services such asnutrient cycling, pest regulationand productivity. Disruptions inbiodiversity levels prompted bytransgenic crops are bound toaffect such services and thusaffect agroecosystem function.Small farmers grow crops in poly-cultures which enhance popula-tions of natural enemies of insectpests. If these are wiped outthrough monocultures then they


Figure 3. Small holders cooperate in rice husking inNorth Cameroon (Courtesy Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend)

The rrapid sspread oof ttrans-genic ccrops tthreatens ccropdiversity bby ppromotinglarge mmonocultures oon aarapidly eexpanding sscale

leading tto ffurther eenviron-mental ssimplification aand

genetic hhomogeneity.

will have to use expensive and toxicchemicals to kill the pests, before natu-rally controlled by biodiversity. Forexample it is known that polyphagousnatural enemies of insect pests thatmove between crop cultures frequentlyencounter Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, atoxin-producing bacterium) containingnon-target herbivorous prey in morethat one crop during the entire season.According to Groot and Dicke (2002)natural enemies may come into contactmore often with Bt toxins via non-targetherbivores, because the toxins do not

bind to receptors on the midgut mem-brane in the non-target herbivores.These findings are problematic for smallfarmers in developing countries who relyon the rich complex of predators andparasites associated with their mixedcropping systems for insect pest control(Altieri 1995). Research results showingthat natural enemies can be affecteddirectly through inter-trophic leveleffects of the toxin present in Bt cropsraise serious concerns about the poten-tial disruption of natural pest control, aspolyphagous predators that move withinand between crop cultivars willencounter Bt-containing, non-target preythroughout the crop season. Put simply,elimination of beneficial insects willcause pests to thrive and lead to.thewell known pesticide treadmill.Disrupted biocontrol mechanisms willlikely result in increased crop losses dueto pests or to increased use of pesti-cides by farmers with consequent healthand environmental hazards.

In fact, there are studies that show thatcertain beneficial species can be nega-tively affected by transgenic crops.Recent studies conducted in the UKshowed that herbicide resistant trans-genic led to a reduction of weed bio-mass and flowering and seeding ofplants within and in margins of beet andspring oilseed rape, which involvedchanges on resource availability withknock-on effects on higher trophic levelsreducing abundance of relatively seden-tary herbivores including Heteroptera,butterflies and bees. Counts of birds andpredaceous carabid beetles that feed onweed seeds were also lower in trans-genic fields (Hawes et al. 2003).


Figure 4. Farmers in India are recoveringtheir lost local varieties for planting and shar-ing, such as at this fair in Jardhar, India(Courtesy Ashish Kothari)

Another key problem with introductionof transgenic crops in biodiversityregions is that the spread of characteris-tics of genetically altered grain to localvarieties could dilute the natural sustain-ability of these races (including fitnessand adaptability). Thus, traits importantto indigenous farmers (resistance todrought, food or fodder quality, competi-tive ability, performance on intercrops,storage quality, taste or cooking proper-ties, compatibility with household laborconditions, etc) could be traded fortransgenic qualities (i.e. herbicide resist-ance) which surely are not important tofarmers (Altieri 2003). Local varietiessubjected to genetic pollution could paya metabolic cost by expressing the char-acteristics of the transgenic variety atthe expense of a trait key for farmers’survival (i.e. drought resistance, nutri-tional quality, etc). Under this scenariofarmers will lose their ability to adapt tochanging biophysical environments andto produce relatively stable yields with aminimum of external inputs while sup-porting their communities’ food security.The risks they face will increase. Thesocial and environmental impacts oflocal crop shortfalls resulting from suchuniformity, or changes in the geneticintegrity of local varieties due to geneticpollution, can be considerable in themargins of the developing world. In theextreme periphery, crop losses oftenmean ongoing ecological degradation,poverty, hunger and even famine. It isunder these conditions of marginalitythat traditional skills and resources asso-ciated with biological and cultural diver-sity should be available to rural popula-tions to maintain or recover their pro-duction processes.

The agroecology and ecoagricul-ture divideAgroecology is a scientific discipline thataddresses agricultural systems from anecological and socioeconomic perspec-tive. Agroecology provides the scientificbasis and methodology to design biodi-verse agroecosystems capable of spon-soring their own function. On the con-trary, ECOAG advocates say little aboutagricultural biodiversity and its ecologi-cal role in farm systems— choosinginstead to focuson wild biodiversi-ty. Agroecologistsrecognize agricul-tural biodiversitynot only as a keysource of geneticresources, butalso as the sourceof important envi-ronmental servic-es key to the per-formance ofagroecosystemssuch as biologicalpest control andnutrient cycling.

As proposed bymanyAgroecology advocates, “greening” thegreen revolution will not be sufficient toreduce hunger and poverty and con-serve biodiversity. If the root causes ofhunger, poverty and inequity are notconfronted head-on, tensions betweensocially equitable development and eco-logically sound conservation are boundto accentuate. Organic farming systemsthat do not challenge the monoculturalnature of plantations and rely on exter-nal inputs as well as foreign and expen-


Environmentalists sshouldno llonger iignore iissues

relating tto lland ddistribu-tion, iindigenous ppeoples’and ffarmers’ rrights, aand

the iimpacts oof gglobalizationon ffood ssecurity aand oof

biotechnology oon ttraditionalagriculture. IIt iis ccrucial ttotranscend tthe MMalthusian

view tthat bblames tthe ppoor fforenvironmental ddegradation.

In ffact ttheir iimpact oonnature iis llow ccompared tto

the ddamaging eeffects oof ttheeconomic aactivities oof llargelandowners, mmining aand

timber ccompanies.

sive certification seals, IPM systemsthat only reduce insecticide use whileleaving the rest of the agrochemicalpackage untouched, or fair-trade coffeesystems destined only for agro-export,may in some cases benefit biodiversity,but in general offer very little to smallfarmers that become dependent onexternal inputs and foreign and volatilemarkets. Fine-tuning of input use doeslittle to move farmers towards the pro-ductive redesign of agroecosystemswhich would move them away fromdependence on external inputs, be theyconventional or organic, and keeps themdependent on an input substitutionapproach. Niche markets for the rich inthe North, in addition to exhibiting thesame problems of any agro-exportscheme which does not prioritize foodsecurity, create stratification within ruralcommunities as only a few memberscan capture the benefits from markets,limited by the demand for gourmetproducts by the northern elite.

Deep differences on the above issuesdefine the divide between Agroecology(a truly pro-poor farmers science) andEcoagriculture. Ecoagriculture cares littleif the land is devoted to plantations orto agroexport crops as long as the strat-egy saves wildlife. It also presumes thatthe economic and technological integra-tion of traditional farming systems intothe global system is a positive step thatenables increased production, incomeand community well being (McNeely andScherr, 2003). But for agroecologists,environmentalists should no longerignore issues relating to land distribu-tion, indigenous peoples’ and farmers’rights, and the impacts of globalizationon food security and of biotechnologyon traditional agriculture. It is crucial totranscend the Malthusian view thatblames the poor for environmentaldegradation. In fact their impact onnature is low compared to the damagingeffects of the economic activities oflarge landowners, min-ing and timber compa-nies. Social processessuch as poverty andinequity in the distri-bution of land andother resources pushthe poor to becomeagents of environmen-tal transformation, andas long as suchprocesses are not dealt with prospectsfor an ecoagriculture approach are limit-ed.

It is also important for ecoagricultural-ists to understand and respect the factthat values of indigenous peoples maybe different from those of the globalconservation community, although


Figure 5. A vineyard with an island of flowers atthe center that serves as a habitat for beneficialbiodiversity (insects, birds, etc.) from which pred-ators disperse into the vineyard for pest control(Courtesy Miguel Altieri)

If tthe rroot ccauses oofhunger, ppoverty aandinequity aare nnot ccon-fronted hhead-oon, tten-sions bbetween ssociallyequitable ddevelopment

and eecologically ssoundconservation aare bbound

to aaccentuate.

species and habitats valued by localpeople have global significance. Muchof the concern of the global communityis the alarming loss of biodiversity andassociated environmental services. Whilefor local communities such issues mayalso be important, their real concerns,needs and perceptions usually remainhidden to outsiders who, despite theirgood intentions, can at times embracean eco-imperialist perception of conser-vation. Therefore the voices of the peo-ple that live in these lands and that bio-diversity is part of their ecological patri-mony must be included in a meaningfulway, recognizing that this may open theconservation movement to criticism.

The agroecological approach toconservationAware of this reality, a key challenge foragroecologists is to translate generalecological principles and naturalresource management concepts intopractical advice directly relevant to theneeds and circumstances of smallhold-ers. The strategy must be applicableunder the highly heterogeneous anddiverse conditions in which smallholders

live, it must be environmentally sustain-able and based on the use of localresources and indigenous knowledge.The emphasis should be on optimizingthe productivity of complex systems atthe field or watershed level, rather thanthe yield of specific commodities.

The enhancement of biodiversity is keyand at the heart of the agroecologystrategy is the idea that agroecosystemsshould mimic the biodiversity levels andfunctioning of local ecosystems. Suchagricultural mimics, like their naturalmodels, can be productive, pest resist-ant and conservative of nutrients. Thisecosystem-analog approach uses biodi-versity to enhance agroecosystem func-tion, allowing farms to sponsor theirown soil fertility, planthealth and sustainedyields, therefore totallyeliminating the needfor external agrochem-ical inputs or trans-genic technologies. Asa result of the biodi-verse designs (such as

polycultures,agroforestry sys-tems, crop-live-stock mixed systems, etc.) andabsence of toxics, non-functionalbiodiversity (wildlife species ofinterest to EACOAG) thrives in suchsystems. In such biodiverse farmsfree of agrochemicals and trans-genic crops, the opportunities forwildlife species to thrive are muchgreater than in “green” monocul-tures managed with input substitu-tion. Thus in agroecological sys-tems conservation is a product ofthe assemblage of productive


Figure 6. Indigenous communities grow quinoa inEcuador (Courtesy Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend)

A kkey cchallenge fforagroecologists iis tto

translate ggeneral eeco-logical pprinciples aandnatural rresource mman-agement cconcepts iintopractical aadvice ddirect-ly rrelevant tto tthe nneedsand ccircumstances oof

smallholders.

agroecosystems rich in functional biodi-versity (the collection of organisms thatplay key ecological roles), and not as in

ecoagriculturethe result ofdeliberateattempts toimprove wildlifehabitat withinagriculturalareas. Systemsthat are rich inwildlife but poorin functional bio-diversity do notnecessarily meetthe needs ofsmall farmers forfood diversity,productive selfsufficiency, lowinputs, etc.

Benefits ofagroecologically designed integratedfarming systems extend beyond con-serving biodiversity by produc-ing far more per unit areathan monocultures (see Box1). Though the yield per unitarea of one crop – corn forexample – may be lower on asmall farm than on a largemonoculture farm, the totalproduction per unit area, oftencomposed of more than adozen crops, trees and variousanimal products, can be farhigher. Usually complex poly-cultures overyield monocul-tures and this is estimated byan index called the land equiv-alent ratio which estimates theefficiency of resource use by a

combination of crops versus monocul-ture. Critics tend to point to lower cropyields forgetting that the yield is ameasure of the performance of a singlecrop. In fact, there is greater per unitarea productivity in complex, integratedagroecological systems that featuremany crop varieties together with ani-mals and trees than in industrial mono-cultures. In most multiple cropping sys-tems developed by smallholders, pro-ductivity in terms of harvestable prod-ucts per unit area is higher than undersole cropping with the same level ofmanagement. Yield advantages canrange from 20 to 60% and accrue dueto reduction of pest incidence and moreefficient use of nutrients, water andsolar radiation. And all this happenswhile conserving native crop geneticresources and overall biodiversity. Thereare also cases where even yields of sin-gle crops are higher in agroecologicalsystems that have undergone the fullconversion process.


At tthe hheart oof tthe aagroecolo-gy sstrategy iis tthe iidea tthat

agroecosystems sshouldmimic tthe bbiodiversity llevels

and ffunctioning oof llocalecosystems. SSuch aagricul-

tural mmimics, llike ttheir nnat-ural mmodels, ccan bbe pproduc-tive, ppest rresistant aand ccon-servative oof nnutrients. TThisecosystem-aanalog aapproachuses bbiodiversity tto eenhance

agroecosystem ffunction,allowing ffarms tto ssponsor

their oown ssoil ffertility, pplanthealth aand ssustained yyields,therefore ttotally eeliminating

the nneed ffor eexternal aagro-chemical iinputs oor ttrans-

genic ttechnologies.

Figure 7. An integrated farm which produces fish, crops,cattle, firewood and where outputs of one subsystem serveas inputs in another thus creating a closed ecological sys-tem (Courtesy Miguel Altieri)


Most research conducted on traditional and peasant agriculture in Latin America suggests thatsmall holder systems are sustainably productive, biologically regenerative, and energy-efficient,and also tend to be equity enhancing, participative, and socially just. In general, traditional agri-culturalists have met the environmental requirements of their food-producing systems by relyingon local resources plus human and animal energy, thereby using low levels of input technology.

While it may be argued that peasant agriculturegenerally lacks the potential of producing mean-ingful marketable surplus, it does ensure foodsecurity. Many scientists wrongly believe that tra-ditional systems do not produce more becausehand tools and draft animals put a ceiling on pro-ductivity. Productivity may be low but the causesappear to be more social, not technical. When thesubsistence farmer succeeds in providing food,there is no pressure to innovate or to enhanceyields. Nevertheless, agroecological field projectsshow that traditional crop and animal combina-tions can often be adapted to increase productiv-ity when the biological structuring of the farm isimproved and labor and local resources are effi-ciently used (see Table I; Altieri, 1995). In fact,most agroecological technologies promoted byNGOs can improve traditional agricultural yields

increasing output per area of marginal land from 400–600 to 2000–2500 kg ha-1 enhancing alsothe general agrodiversity and its associated positive effects on food security and environmentalintegrity. Some projects emphasizing green manures and other organic management techniquescan increase maize yields from 1–1.5 t ha-1 (a typical highland peasant yield) to 3–4 t ha-1.Polycultures produce more combined yield in a given area than could be obtained from monocul-tures of the component species. Most traditional or NGO promoted polycultures exhibit LER val-ues greater than 1.5. Moreover, yield variability of cereal/legume polycultures are much lowerthan for monocultures of the components (Table 2).

Country Organizationinvolved

AgroecologicalIntervention

No. of farmers or farming

units affected

No. ofhectaresaffected

Dominantcrops

DominantYielding

crops

Brazil EPAGRI AS-PTA

Green manures,cover crops

38 000 families 1 330 000 Maize,wheat

198–246%

Guatemala Altertec andothers

Soil conservation,green manures,organic farming

17 000 units 17 000 Maize 250%

Figure 8. Alyssum flower strips within organ-ic vegetable crops as a habitat diversificationstrategy to enhance beneficial biota (CourtesyMiguel Altieri)

Table 1. Extent and impacts of agroecological technologies and practices implemented by NGOsin peasant farming throughout Latin America

Box 1. Applying agroecology to enhance the productivity of peasant farming systems in LatinAmerica (adapted from Altieri, 1999)


Honduras CIDDICOCOSECHA

Soil conservation,green manures 27 000 units 42 000 Maize 250%

EL Salvador COAGRESRotations, green

manures, compost,botanical pesticides

> 200 farmers no data Cereals 40–60%

Mexico OaxacanCooperatives

Compost, terracing, contour

planting3000 families 23 500 Coffee 140%

Peru PRAVTIRCIED

Rehabilitation ofancient terraces > 1250 families > 1000 Andean

crops 141–165%

PIWA-CIED Raised fields no data 250 Andeancrops

333%

CIED Watershed agricul-tural rehabilitation

> 100 families N/A Andeancrops

30–50%

IDEAS Intercropping, agro-forestry, composting

12 families 25 Severalcrops

20%

DominicanRepublic

Plan SierraSwedforest-Fudeco

Soil conservation,dry forest manage-ment, silvopastoralsystems

ChileCET Integrated farms,

organic farming> 1000 families > 2250 Several

crops> 50%

Cuba ACAO Integrated farms 4 cooperatives 250 Several

crops50-70%

Cropping system Monoculture (mean of sole crops) Polyculture

Cassava/bean 33.04 27.54

Cassava/maize 28.76 18.09

Cassava/sweet potato 23.87 13.42

Cassava/maize/sweet potato 31.05 21.44

Cassava/maize/bean 25.04 14.95

Table 2. Coefficient of variability of yields registered in different cropping systems during 3 yearsin Costa Rica


It is not a matter of romanticizing tradi-tional agriculture or considering devel-opment per se as detrimental, but if theinterest lies in “improving” local agricul-ture, researchers must first understandand build on the existing agriculturalsystem, rather than simply replacing it.It is important to highlight the role oftraditional agriculture as a source ofagrobiodiversity and regenerative farm-ing techniques which constitute the veryfoundation of any sustainable ruraldevelopment strategy directed atresource-poor farmers. Moreover diverseagricultural systems that confer highlevels of resilience to changing socio-economic and environmental conditionsare extremely valuable to poor farmersas they buffer against natural or human-induced variations in production condi-tions.

A case study: harmonizing biodi-versity conservation and cacaoproductionThis project was implemented by theCentro Tropical de Investigacion yEnsenanza (CATIE) in Talamanca, anindigenous cocoa growing region ofCosta Rica. The main goal of the 3-yearproject that ended earlier this year wascongruent with ECOAG goals: toimprove the sustainable production ofcacao while conserving biodiversity in

small organic cacao farms managed byindigenous peoples in Talamanca, CostaRica. The project’s main strategy wasto find ways of simultaneously enhanc-ing cacao production in a sustainablemanner while conserving biodiversity.The focus on cacao is justified by thefact that in addition to being culturallyand economically important to localindigenous groups of the area, it is wellknown that highly diverse and multistra-ta cacao agroforestry systems (CAFS)support higher levels of biological diver-sity than most tropical crops (Rice andGreenberg 2000). A key problem is thatthe permanence of these systems isthreatened by low yields and low pricesof cacao. By improving the productivityof cacao, the project sought to increasefarmers’ income and in this way avoidthe shift of farmers to other less biodi-versity conserving crops such as banana(Somarriba et al. 2003).

After training a number of local farmersto monitor CAFS, researchers confirmedthat CAFS harbor significant biodiversity,including 55 families, 132 genera and185 species of plants, as well as a sub-stantial number of insect, bird (190), bat(36) and various mammal species, someof which seem to be declining.Biodiversity is highest in the more rustictree diverse and multistrata systems

In general, data shows that over time agroecological systems exhibit more stable levels of totalproduction per unit area than high-input systems; produce economically favorable rates ofreturn; provide a return to labor and other inputs sufficient for a livelihood acceptable to smallfarmers and their families; and ensure soil protection and conservation as well as enhance biodi-versity.

For a region like Latin America which is considered to be 52.2% self-reliant on major food cropsas it produces enough food to satisfy the needs of its population, agroecological approaches thatcan double yields of the existing 16 million peasant units can safely increase the output of peas-ant agriculture for domestic consumption to acceptable levels well into the future.


(about 55-60% shade cover) and lowestin CAFS with simple strata (maximumtwo shade tree species with 35-40 %shade).

CATIE researchers proposed a numberof interventions aimed at improvingcacao production (pruning, introductionof clones, enrichment with fruit trees,shade management, etc) while at thesame time preserving biodiversity. Afterthree years of project interventionsthere was no evidence that newlydesigned CAFS conserved or enhancedbiodiversity. Apparently, biodiversitydeclines as plant diversity and structuralcomplexity of cacaotales (cocoa agro-forestry systems) decrease, althoughlower diversity in cacaotales may bemore desirable from an agronomic pointof view. Productivity in rustic systems(traditional biodiverse agroforests) islower than in the less diverse CAFS,suggesting a negative relationshipbetween conservation and productionand presenting a major challenge toresearchers and managers because as

cacaotales arerenewed or interven-tions made toenhance production(especially throughpruning, eliminationof shade trees andgenetic homogeniza-tion with clones),biodiversity levelsapparently may be

sacrificed. When replacing existing treeswith new timber or fruit species orreducing shade through pruning or thin-ning, it is important to consider thatsuch practices can reduce habitat com-plexity for wildlife. Likewise enrichment

with forest or fruit trees must be doneconsidering the potential competitionpressures that these plants may exerton existing cacao trees, and the possi-bility that some trees may be sources ofinsect pests or diseases (i.e. viruses).

By only focusing on production enhance-ment and wildlife diversity, researchersfailed to consider in their surveys a keyrelationship in peasant agriculture: therelationship between farm size, diversitylevels and productivity. Smaller cacao-tales (<1 ha) were more biodiverse andalso seemed more productive than larg-er ones, indicating that given labor andcash constraints there may be an opti-mal size for efficient production (interms of labor allocation and returns perunit of labor).

In situations such as this, agroecologistswould recommend harmonizing conser-vation and production in cacaotales over1 ha in size by intensifying managementto enhance production (pruning, graft-ing, etc) in a small optimal area of eachcacaotal (0.5-0.7 has), leaving the restof the area of the cacaotal under lowinput management, with high levels ofplant diversity and multistrata designsfor conservation of existing biodiversity.In a well-managed 0.5 ha cacaotal,farmers may be able to obtain higherproductivity per unit of labor than in abadly managed cacaotal of 1- 1.5 has.In this way a mixed strategy featuringintensification of production and conser-vation enhancement may be reached.

As farmers become aware of biodiversitycomponents they should also learn todistinguish between the various typesand functional groups of biodiversity and

By oonly ffocusing oonproduction eenhancementand wwildlife ddiversity,researchers ffail tto ccon-sider aa kkey rrelationshipin ppeasant aagriculture:the rrelationship bbetweenfarm ssize, ddiversity llev-

els aand pproductivity.


the roles they play in the CAFS:1.ecologically functional groups that

mediate important processes such asbiological control, pollination or organ-ic matter decomposition;

2.conservation functional groups thatprotect soil and water;

3. livelihood functional groups that pro-duce timber, fruit, cash, etc.;

4.destructive biota that reduce produc-tion and other processes; and,

5.non functional biodiversity (wildlifespecies, etc).

In this way farmers could target specificbiodiversity groups according to thefunctions they wanted to emphasize inorder to maintain healthy and produc-tive CAFS.

The question that remains is, whatmechanisms are in place to compensatefarmers for the environmental servicesof interest to ECOAG advocates (non-functional biodiversity)? Many farmersmay be trained to monitor biodiversity,and although they would appreciatenew knowledge and skills which wouldalso help to raise conservation con-sciousness in the communities, mostfarmers would doubt whether non-func-tional biodiversity conservation wouldbring them direct economic benefits

Finally, an approach directed at increas-ing cacao production while conservingbiodiversity must transcend the cacaotaland embrace the total farming system.Most farms in the hillside areas have anaverage size of 42 hectares where cacao

occupies about 1.6 ha, the restbeing devoted to forest, fallow,pasture and annual crops. In suchareas, farm designs should bedirected at maintaining or enrichingthe surrounding environment con-ducive to biodiversity conservation(forest patches, etc), enhancingfood security (re-introduction ofthe practice of growing beans, rice,corn, cassava, etc), and promotingother productive activities to gen-erate income (honey, fish, woodfor crafts, medicinal plants, etc),including ecotourism under localcontrol. Farm designs should pro-mote integration among sub-sys-tems so that outputs from onesubsystem become inputs into theother, creating efficient bio-resource flows, as well as syner-gies that may aid in sponsoring thesoil fertility, plant protection andproductivity of cacao and the other

Figure 9. Corridor of plants that connect to a riparianforest for the circulation of beneficial biota from forestto vineyard (Courtesy Miguel Altieri)


crops of the entire farm.

Spreading the agroecologicalapproachIn order for agroecological approachesthat lead to food security and biodiversi-ty conservation to spread, majorchanges are needed in policies, institu-tions, and research development.

Agroecologicalinterventions musttruly benefit smallfarmers by provid-ing them withaccess to landand otherresources, equi-table markets,alternative tech-nologies, butmore importantlyby empoweringthem to becomeactors of theirown development.It is clear that

macro-economic reform and sectoralpolicies promoted by trade liberalizationhave not generated a supportive envi-ronment for small and poor farmers. Inmost cases agricultural growth was con-centrated in the commercial sector anddid not trickle down. Trade liberalizationreduced protection at a time when com-modity prices were at historic lows,leaving small farmers incapable of com-peting in domestic markets. The drop inprice of many crops, the lack of credit,as well as the long distances from mar-kets are all factors that have led toincreased pauperization of the smallfarm sector. Moreover, government pro-grams and subsidies have concentratedon medium and large commercial farm-ers and small farmers have remained

limited in their access to services, infra-structure and markets. Such negativetrends must be halted so that they donot continue drastically impacting theviability of peasant and family agricul-ture.

Despite such anti-peasant biased sce-narios, the evidence shows that sustain-able agricultural systems can be eco-nomically, environmentally and sociallyviable, and can contribute positively tolocal livelihoods as well as biodiversityconservation goals (Uphoff 2002). Butwithout appropriate policy support, theyare likely to remain localized in extent.Therefore, a major challenge for thefuture entails promoting institutional andpolicy changes to realize the potential ofagroecological approaches. Necessarychanges include land reform, protectionof prices for food crops, appropriate andequitable marketopportunities, andequitable partner-ships between localgovernments,NGOs and farmerswith participatorytechnology devel-opment andfarmer-to-farmerresearch andextension replacingtop-down transferof technology mod-els.

Agroecology hasalready made someinroads, particularlyamong peasants’movements and NGOs, but also amongsome governments. In Latin America

Policy cchanges nnecessary ttoachieve tthe ppotential oof

agroecology iinclude llandreform, pprotection oof ppricesfor ffood ccrops, aappropriate

and eequitable mmarket ooppor-tunities, aand eequitable

partnerships bbetween llocalgovernments, NNGOs aand

farmers wwith pparticipatorytechnology ddevelopmentand ffarmer-tto-ffarmerresearch aand eextension

replacing ttop-ddown ttransferof ttechnology mmodels.

Alternatives tto bboth cchem-ical-iintensive, hhigh-yyieldagriculture aand tto lland

extensive ssustainableagriculture ccan bbe eexpected

to rresult ffrom sscientificendeavors ddedicated tto

their ddiscovery aand ddevel-opment. HHowever, oonly aafraction oof tthe bbillions oofresearch ddollars sspent oover

the llast ffifty yyears hhasbeen ddevoted tto iincreasing

the pproductivity oof ssus-tainable aand/or oorganicproduction ssystems aandcurrent ffunding iis bbeing

threatened bby pproposedfederal bbudget ccuts.


agroecology is strongly supported by thesocial movements that promote foodsovereignty and oppose globalizationand GMOs. Via Campesina, a globalpeasants’ movement, MST – TheLandless Peasants Movement – in Brazil,and other social rural movements havealso declared agroecology as the keyproduction strategy to reach food securi-ty and natural resource conservation. Inaddition, the NGO/CSO Forum for FoodSovereignty in 2002, attended by morethan 600 NGO/CBO and social move-ments, included agroecology as one ofthe 4 main pillars of food sovereignty

(the others were the right to food,access, management and control oflocal resources, and trade and food sov-ereignty). Finally, countries such asCuba, Brazil and Venezuela have policieseither at the national or regional levelthat advocate for an agroecologicalapproach. The approach is also spread-ing beyond Latin America: FAO is work-ing with civil society (through theInternational Planning Committee forFood Sovereignty) and governments todevelop and implement agroecologyprojects in all continents.

Agroecology and food sovereignty go hand in hand. Social movements and NGOs who supportthe food sovereignty approach recognize agroecology as one of the key strategies for its achieve-ment. These approaches share similar concerns over access to productive resources, the dangersof transgenic crops and respect for biodiversity and indigenous knowledge. According to Via Campesina “Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to define their own agricul-ture and food policies, to protect and regulate domestic agricultural production and trade inorder to achieve sustainable development objectives, to determine the extent to which they want

to be self reliant, and to restrict the dumpingof products in their markets. Food sover-eignty does not negate trade, but rather, itpromotes the formulation of trade policiesand practices that serve the rights of peo-ples to safe, healthy and ecologically sus-tainable production.”

Food sovereignty has been gaining in sup-port and interest. In 2002 the World FoodSummit +5 took place in parallel to theNGO/CSO Forum for Food Sovereignty, anevent organized by social movements, NGOsand CSOs. The success of this event led toan agreement to work with the FAO on foodsovereignty issues. And more recently theUN Special Rapporteur on the right to foodrecommended that "Food sovereignty beconsidered as an alternative model for agri-

Box 2. What is food sovereignty?

Figure 10. Youth present their declaration to the4th Conference of Via Campesina under the rallyingcry “Organizing the struggle: Land, Food, Dignityand Life!” (Courtesy G.R. Riffer)


culture and agricultural trade, in order to meet State obligations to respect, protect and fulfill theright to food" (UN Economic and Social Council document E/CN.4/2004/10).

Table 3. Dominant model versus food sovereignty model (taken from Rosset, 2003)

Issue Dominant model Food Sovereignty model

Trade Free trade is everything Food and agriculture exempt fromtrade agreements

Production priority Agroexports Food for local markets

Crop prices “What the market dictates” (leaveintact mechanisms that enforce lowprices)

Fair prices that cover the costs ofproduction and allow farmers andfarmworkers a life with dignity

Market access Access to foreign markets Access to local markets; an endto the displacement of farmersfrom their own markets byagribusiness

Subsidies While prohibited in the Third World,many subsidies are allowed in theUS and Europe—but are paid onlyto the largest farmers

Subsidies that do not damageother countries (via dumping) areokay; i.e., grant subsidies only tofamily farmers, for direct market-ing, price/income support, soilconservation, conversion to sus-tainable farming, research, etc.

Food Chiefly a commodity; in practice,this means processes, contaminatedfood that is full of fat, sugar, highfructose corn syrup, and toxicresidues

A human right: specifically, shouldbe healthy, nutritious, affordable,culturally appropriate, and locallyproduced

Being able to produce An option for the economically effi-cient

A right for rural peoples

Hunger Due to low productivity A problem of access and distribu-tion; due to poverty and inequali-ty

Food security Achieved by importing food fromwhere it is the cheapest

Greatest when the food produc-tion is in the hands of the hun-gry; or when food is producedlocally


ConclusionThere is no question that small farmerslocated in biodiversity hotspots through-out the developing world can producemuch of their needed food in ways thatare compatible with conservation goals.

The evidence is conclusive: newapproaches and technologies spearhead-ed by farmers, NGOs and some localgovernments around the world arealready making a sufficient contributionto food security at the household,

Control over productiveresources (land, water,forests)

Privatized Local; community controlled

Access to land Via the market Via genuine agrarian reform;without access to land, the rest ismeaningless

Seeds A patentable commodity A common heritage of humanity,held in trust by rural communitiesand cultures; “no patents on life”

Rural credit and invest-ment

From private banks and corpora-tions

From the public sector; designedto support family agriculture

Dumping Not an issue Must be prohibited

Monopoly Not an issue The root of most problems;monopolies must be broken up

Overproduction No such thing, by definition Drives prices down and farmersinto poverty; we need supplymanagement policies for US andEU

Genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs)

The wave of the future Bad for health and the environ-ment; an unnecessary technology

Farming technology Industrial, monoculture, chemical-intensive; uses GMOs

Agroecological, sustainable farm-ing methods, no GMOs

Farmers Anachronisms; the inefficient willdisappear

Guardians of culture and cropgermplasm; stewards of produc-tive resources; repositories ofknowledge; internal market andbuilding block of broad-based,inclusive economic development

Urban consumers Workers to be paid as little as possible

Need living wages

Another world (alterna-tives)

Not possible/ not of interest Possible and amply demonstrated


national, and regional levels. A varietyof agroecological and participatoryapproaches in many countries show pro-duction increases through diversification,improvement in diet and income, contri-butions to national food security andeven to exports, and also conservationof the natural resource base includingbiodiversity (Uphoff and Altieri 1999).

There are many opportunities to createlinkages and synergies to solve thedilemma of conserving while producing.Exclusive attention to meeting foodneeds can exert a very high toll on theenvironment, undermining possibilitiesof meeting food needs in the future. Buta sole focus on preserving the naturalresource base could condemn millions tohunger and poverty. Feeding a growingworld population without further endan-gering the natural environment dependsupon public support for high-yield, sus-tainable agriculture research, educationand extension. Alternatives to bothchemical-intensive, high-yield agricultureand to land extensive sustain-able agriculture can be expect-ed to result from scientificendeavors dedicated to theirdiscovery and development.However, only a fraction of thebillions of research dollarsspent over the last fifty years(mostly in the United States ofAmerica) has been devoted toincreasing the productivity ofsustainable and/or organicproduction systems and cur-rent funding is being threat-ened by proposed federalbudget cuts (Hewitt and Smith1995).

Demands to dramatically increase foodproduction in the next century mayrequire a re-evaluation of ideas andpositions by proponents on both sides ofthe debate, but it isalso possible that thedebate will remainpolarized. Socialmovements (such asMST and hundreds ofanti-globalizationindigenous andgrassroots move-ments) will most like-ly determine the out-come of this debate.They articulate the views of small farm-ers and many consumers andresearchers in support of sustainableagriculture who do not see the need toevaluate the role of emerging technolo-gies (precision farming and biotechnolo-gy) in helping meet food needs due totheir unreasonable environmental andsocial costs. On the other side of thedebate, proponents of high-yield agricul-

What iis iimportant ttorealize iis tthat iif ggovern-

ments, uuniversities,CGIAR aand oorganiza-tions llike IIUCN ffail tto

support tthe sscaling uup oofagroecological aapproach-

es, rrural aand ssocialmovements wwill ddo sso

whatever tthe ccost.

Figure 11. Members of the Landless Peasants Movement(MST) occupy land in the massive plantations of Brazil(Courtesy Maryam Rahmanian)


ture will need to embrace the precau-tionary principle. In addition, they mustrecognize that scientifically valid alterna-tives to chemically-based agricultureexist and can and should play a vitalrole in developing the production sys-tems of the twenty-first century. What isimportant to realize is that if govern-ments, universities, CGIAR and organi-zations like IUCN fail to support thescaling up of agroecological approaches,rural and social movements will do sowhatever the cost.

ReferencesAltieri, M.A. “Agroecology: the science of natural

resource management for poor farmers in marginalenvironments” Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, 93: 1-24, 2002.

Altieri, M.A. “The sociocultural and food securityimpacts of genetic pollution via transgenic crops oftraditional varieties in Latin American centers ofpeasant agriculture” Bulletin of Science Technologyand Society, 23: 1-19, 2003.

Altieri, M.A. and C.I. Nicholls Biodiversity and pestmanagement in agroecosystems, Haworth Press(New York), 2004.

Altieri, M.A. “Agroecology: the science of naturalresource management for poor farmers in marginalenvironments” Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment, 93: 1-24, 2002.

Altieri, M.A. “Applying agroecology to enhance theproductivity of peasant farming systems in LatinAmerica” Environment, Development andSustainability, 1: 197–217, 1999.

Altieri, M.A. Genetic engineering in agriculture: themyths, environmental risks and alternatives. 2nd Ed.Food First Books. Oakland , CA 2004

Donald, P.F. “Biodiversity impacts of some agriculturalcommodity production systems” ConservationBiology, 18: 1-29, 2004.

Gliessman, S.R. Agroecology: ecological processes insustainable agriculture, Ann Arbor Press (MI), 1998.

Hawes, C. et al. “Responses of plants and inverte-brate trophic groups to contrasting herbicideregimes in the farm scale evaluations of geneticallymodified herbicide-tolerant crops” PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B: BiologicalSciences, 358: 1899-1913, 2003.

Hewitt T.I. and K.R. Smith Intensive agriculture andenvironmental quality: examining the newest agri-cultural myth Henry Wallace Institute for AlternativeAgriculture, Greenbelt MD, 1995.

James, C. Global review of commercialized transgenic

crops: 2000 International Service for the Acquisitionof Agri-Biotech Application, ISAAA Briefs No. 23-2001, Ithaca, 2001.

Jordan, C.F. “Genetic engineering, the farm crisis andworld hunger” BioScience 52: 523-529, 2001.

Lappe, F.M., J. Collines and P. Rosset World Hunger:twelve myths Grove Press (New York), 1998.

Martinez-Torres, M.E. Sustainable development,campesino organizations, and technological changeamong small coffee producers in Chiapas, Mexico.Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,2003.

McNeely, J.A. and S.R. Scherr Ecoagriculture: strate-gies to feed the world and save wild biodiversityIsland Press (Washington D.C.), 2003.

Perfecto, I., R. A. Rice, R. Greenberg, & M.E. van derVoort “Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for bio-diversity” BioScience, 46: 598-608, 1996.

Rice, R.A. and R. Greenberg “Cacao cultivation andthe conservation of biological diversity” AMBIO AJournal of the Human Environment, 29: 167-173,2000.

Rosset, P. On the Benefits of Small Farms Food First-Backgrounder. Oakland, CA, 2002.

Rosset, P. “Food sovereignty: Global Rallying Cry ofFarmer Movements” Food First Backgrounder, Vol.9, 2003.

Somarriba, E. et al. II informe tecnico-financiero“Proyecto Biodiversity conservation and sustainableproduction in small, indigenous organic cacao farmsin the Talamanaca-Caribbean Corridor, Costa Rica”CATIE, Turrialba, 2003.

Uphoff, N. Agroecological innovations: increasing foodproduction with participatory development,Earthscan (London), 2002.

Uphoff, N and M.A. Altieri “Alternatives to convention-al agriculture for meeting world food needs in thenext century” Report of a conference onSustainable agriculture: evaluation of new para-digms and old practices. Cornell InternationalInstitute for Food, Agriculture and Development.Ithaca, NY. 1999.

Wojtkowski, P.A. Landscape agroecology HaworthPress (New York), 2004.

Documents

Agroecology versusEcoagriculture - IUCN › backup_iucn › cmsdata.iucn.org › ...Agroecology versusEcoagriculture, M. Altieri 3 4 CEESP Occasional PPapers 3, November 2004 of the